A few LP and CP thoughts
A week ago I read over the new Libertarian Party platform and was pleased to see the party step in the right direction. It's a very sensible and respectable document that any LP candidate can run on. I was also relieved because from listening to some of the dissenters, I was concerned the LP had taken a neocon turn towards supporting the war and intervention (which some libertarians do), but there was nothing like that, at least in my opinion, to show neoconization of the party's foreign policy platform.
Yes there will be dissenters from the "new" LP document but I think in this case it will be addition by subtraction. The fewer "Chief Wana Dubies" and other eccentrics in the LP the better off they will be.
Now, speaking of dissenters, the Constitution Party has plenty. Several state parties have announced their intention to split from the national party or "disaffiliate" from it because the national committee refused to expel the Nevada IAP Party, the CP's Nevada Affiliate, because its leadership took a less than 100 percent view towards banning abortion unlike the CP's national platform. Here's my view on the latest news in the CP I posted on Third Party Watch:
"Does this mean anything at all outside of the Presidential nominating process for 2008? A state branch of CP decides to “disaffiliate” itself from the national party but instead of becoming a new party (which would mean it would have to start all over in terms of ballot access) it simply keeps the CP name, meaning well, marital separation instade of full-scale divorce.
But in a way it just shows the CP was a loose party to begin with given that many of its state parties were once belonged to the IAP like Nevadas and were allowed to hold onto that name.
I still think Jim Clymer made the right decision and this is all that comes of it, one can hardly say it cripple the party overall than having such state parties form an entirely new entity. Its just means they won’t get any money from the national CP anymore and they can’t participate in the presidential nominating process. Their loss.
Lot asked the famous question if there were any good men in Sodom would the Lord please not destroy the city. In the case of the CP, there was no justifyable reason to kick-out the entire state party because of the views of its leadership. It should be pointed out that the CP's national committee also refused to support the Nevada IAP electoral ticket this fall for their decision to stray from the national position on abortion (with no exceptions). I thought this was the proper decision. The best thing to do would be to work with those within the Nevada IAP who oppose the local leadership and help change their views. If you have a cancer, you try to cure it first before cutting off some body parts.
So long as these state parties don't try to form their own party, and they've made no move to do so, then the CP will be fine. Perhaps someday they will reunite, so long as the lines of communication are left open.
--Sean Scallon
posted by Sean Scallon @ 2:19 PM
5 comments
5 Comments:
Joe were those Nevada party leaders elected with 100% of the vote or only 51% percent? What do you tell those in the Nevada IAP who favor the total ban on abortion? That they can no longer participate within the CP because of the sins of the leaders they voted against? How is that fair?
Lets say for the sake of argument that Roe v. Wade is overturned and a group of states decide to allow abortions. And lets say a member of the CP is President. What do you do? Bomb them? Send the Marines to invade them? Kick them out of the Union?
What I would do, is work thsoe people opposed to abortion and try to restrict abortion in those states as much as I could until the culture changed to the point where all abortion could be declared illegal. Thus with the Nevada IAP, I would work with those wihtin the party opposed to the leadership position so that the party will change its leaders and its views in the future. It's my opinion such a plan would work a lot better than banishment.
You can still be true to your principals and be practical as well. I understand why some CP members would be upset at the Nevada IAP, but there's a better to handle the situation than exclusion and think Jim Clymer and other national committee members chose that way.
Well Joe, I see you've taken the Lincoln view situation, which is no different than the Robspierre view that human perfection sometimes comes or, in other words, an omlet can't be made without breaking a few eggs. This is also Leninist view as well.
"but certainly an appropriate amount of force would be a needed and welcome improvement"
Would you consider buring down Columbia, SC. and other such war crimes an appropriate amount of force to end slavery? Would you consider destroying Iraq an appropriate amount of force to bring democracy?
My advice to you and other Peroutkaites is consider such views very carefully because you are heading down the dark path of neoconservatism and social democracy that Lincoln set us down. A true Constitutionalist understands what some states may do with bounds of that document may very well be odious but the best reaction is to change the state from within, not to force it in conformity with monsterous tyranny that is central state. This is what I am advocating be done with the Nevada IAP and what should be done with the rest of the U.S. It's the right path, believe me.
Peroukta is right that Roe v. Wade is unconsitutional and as President he would not enforce it. But would that mean he would take action against states that did have abortion laws, including violence? As I said, dangerous ground here. Very dangerous.
The Hansen's were in charge when Peroutka came through in 2004 and no evidence was shown in Tampa to indicate the members supported Hansen's VIEWS. All I heard was Hansen this and Hansen that.
Hansen will eventually un-do himself. In the meantime, run away if you all wish, I wil lstay and fight since-unlike Dems and Repubs-we still ahve a much better chance to plug the leak in CP and sail forward.
Part of the underlying issue-i hushed whispers-was religious purity. Some, not most, of the disaffiliation group are Protestant-onlyists for CP membership/leadership. Sad, as we all need to work together and I paln to do so.
Dear Sean,
I resigned from the Constitution Party National Committee and as co-chair of the Illinois affiliate in January of 2005 NOT because of their tolerance of the pro-abort stance of the Nevada Party, but because of their lack of fidelity and integrity to the very first plank of the CP platform -- The Sanctity of LIFE.
Post a Comment
<< Home